Posts Tagged ‘Heritage’
Instead of learning from the repeated failures of running “progressive” GOP candidates, Karl Rove and the establishment Republicans once again prove that their primary objective is not to represent their conservative base, but to stay in power at all costs.
The good news is, they are threatened enough by the Tea Party to try and attack it. The bad news is, they may destroy the party and along with it, any chances of winning in 2014 and 2016.
We knew this was coming, no? A month ago, Politico reported that Senate Republicans were planning to intervene more aggressively in GOP primaries in hopes of clearing the field for their preferred candidates. A few days later, Steve LaTourette announced that the Republican Main Street Partnership was dropping “Republican” from its name and would intervene on behalf of centrist candidates from both parties in congressional elections. Now here comes Rove’s group, American Crossroads, pledging untold millions towards electing the most allegedly “electable” candidate in Republican primaries. No more Akins — and maybe no more Marco Rubios, Rand Pauls, and Ted Cruzes too?
The battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party has begun. On one side is the Tea Party. On the other side stand Karl Rove and his establishment team, posing as tacticians while quietly undermining conservatism.
Yesterday, the New York Times reported that the “biggest donors in the Republican Party” have joined forces with Karl Rove and Steven J. Law, president of American Crossroads, to create the Conservative Victory Project. The Times reports that this new group will dedicate itself to “recruit seasoned candidates and protect Senate incumbents from challenges by far-right conservatives and Tea Party enthusiasts who Republican leaders worry could complicate the party’s effort to win control of the Senate.” The group points to candidates like Christine O’Donnell in Delaware and Richard Mourdock in Indiana as examples of Tea Party primary picks going sideways in major Senatorial battles.
But it is American Crossroads and its ilk that have run the GOP into the ground. Spending millions of dollars on useless 30,000-ft. advertising campaigns during the last election cycle, training candidates to soften conservatism in order to appeal to “moderates,” blowing up the federal budget under George W. Bush as a bipartisan tactic – all of those strategies led the party to a disastrous defeat in 2012. The Tea Party, which may nominate losers from time to time, also brought the Republicans their historic 2010 Congressional victory. If Tea Party candidates lose, it’s because they weren’t good candidates; if GOP establishment candidates lose, it’s because they weren’t good conservatives. The choice for actual conservatives should be easy.
But it isn’t. The Bush insider team that helped lead to the rise of Barack Obama insists that they, and only they, know the path to victory. As the Times reports, Conservative Victory Project won’t merely protect incumbents – it will challenge sitting Congresspeople of the Tea Party variety…
The people who brought us No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, TARP, the GM bailout, Harriet Miers, etc., etc., etc. are really hacked off that people have been rejecting them. In 2012, about the only successful Republican candidates were the ones who directly rejected the legacy of these people.
So now they will up their game. They don’t like being shut out. They blame the tea party and conservatives for their failure to win primaries. They’ll now try to match conservatives and, in the process, call themselves conservatives.
I dare say any candidate who gets this group’s support should be targeted for destruction by the conservative movement. They’ve made it really easy now to figure out who the terrible candidates will be in 2014.
I’m struck by the deep sense of pain and disquiet that has penetrated the very core of our base. They are witnessing a rogue regime that is dismantling every aspect of this country they love so dearly – one limb at a time. They watch helplessly as a malevolent administration, which harbors no respect for our Founders and Constitution, works to destroy our free markets, saddles our children with incorrigible debt, infringes upon our liberties, assaults our family values, erases our borders, appeases our enemies, and abrogates the rule of law. Hence, they see the demise of our Republic, with only feeble resistance to those engendering the decline.
[…] Millions of Republican voters feel disenfranchised and voiceless as the pale-pastel figures in the party rise to the top levels of power. All they want is one party that is willing to take a stand and articulate their values – values which were considered commonsense until recent years.
Over the past few election cycles, a number of us have worked hard to find those few but strong voices in the wilderness. We have successfully elected people like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, and a number of congressmen who are committed to fighting for the values of our Republic. Yet, the old power players within the party will not go silently. They obdurately seek to quell any effort to restore the Republican Party as an effective voice for the values of our Republic.
Yes, it is not enough to merely nominate a conservative; we must also find candidates who are savvy, articulate, and have the organization to go the distance. But the minute we choose a candidate who is not conservative, we lose the election before a single vote is cast. Voters are attracted to a show of force and decisiveness; we will certainly never change hearts and minds if we nominate candidates who are indistinguishable from Democrats.
We are looking for one party that is willing to fight for the restoration of our Republic, not jettison every tenant of our Constitution under the false allurement of electoral success. One by one, people like Karl Rove seek to crush another sacred belief of the conservative base. All social issues? Gone. Enforcement before amnesty? No way. Stay strong on taxes? Forget about it. Fight Obamacare? That’s a done deal.
Folks, we must win back the soul of the Republican Party before we can affect any positive change.
A small, family-owned bakery in Oregon is being investigated for “discrimination” by the Oregon Department of Justice because their faith compelled them to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony.
A woman and her mother came into the bakery asking about wedding cakes. During the course of the conversation, the baker, Aaron, asked the groom’s name. He was told that there was no groom – rather, a second bride. At this point, he apologized and explained that he did not make cakes for homosexual weddings.
The woman apparently left in a huff, and her mother came back to give Aaron a piece of her mind. A few days later, Aaron discovered that a formal complaint had been filed against him for “discrimination,” by the lesbian partner who hadn’t even been present for the discussion. The Oregon Attorney General is now investigating.
Once upon a time in America, the exchange of goods and services was voluntary, unhappy customers were satisfied with taking their business elsewhere, and signs that said “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” actually meant something.
Now, the government wants to tell business owners who and what they must serve, regardless of their convictions. But the sacrament of marriage is particularly sacred and holy to people of faith, and to redefine it in any way is a sin. To take part in a ceremony which seeks to redefine that sacrament would be a violation of this baker’s faith.
Obviously, Aaron has no problem serving gay customers for occasions like holidays and birthdays. This woman had bought a cake from him once before, and had been served with no issue. If she hadn’t been happy with the service, she wouldn’t have come back.
But this time, the customer was asking Aaron to participate in a ceremony which violated his faith. He has a 1st Amendment right to abstain, and the customer has a right to be unhappy about it and never buy there again, but not to force him to accommodate her wedding against his conscience.
A quick peek at their website reveals the reason why this customer’s disgruntled fiance chose to make an intimidating example out of Aaron and his family:
No small business should be bullied into acting against their conscience. I bet if he refused to bake a cake for a Westboro Baptist or Klan rally, nobody would bother him. Or a cake to promote a candidate or cause he doesn’t agree with. Or a Muslim “wedding” with a 6-year-old bride. The only difference here is that he dared to refrain against a liberal pet agenda.
People have a right to discriminate against certain behaviors they find offensive. They have a right to not be bullied by the government for honoring their conscience. The Oregon Attorney General should be ashamed of wasting taxpayer money and pursuing such a spurious complaint. Please show them your support!
Wow. I’m not a Rush Limbaugh fan, but he called this one months ago.
President Barack Obama said if he had a son, he would have to think “long and hard” before he let him play football and suggested he–along with other football fans–watches football against his conscience.
“I’m a big football fan, but I have to tell you if I had a son, I’d have to think long and hard before I let him play football,” Obama said.
In an interview with the left-of-center New Republic, Obama said football will “probably change gradually to try to reduce some of the violence” and that may allow fans to not have to “examine our consciences quite as much” while watching the game.
“And I think that those of us who love the sport are going to have to wrestle with the fact that it will probably change gradually to try to reduce some of the violence,” Obama said. “In some cases, that may make it a little bit less exciting, but it will be a whole lot better for the players, and those of us who are fans maybe won’t have to examine our consciences quite as much.”
News flash to liberals: there is NO SUCH THING as a “risk free” life. Professional athletes understand the risks they’re taking, and it’s their right to take those risks. This is NONE of the government’s business!
If liberals want to live their lives cocooned in bubble wrap with no sharp objects, be my guest – in your own homes!
The rest of us understand that if you spend your life trying to protect yourself from every possible risk, you will never truly live.
David L. Goetsch explains “Why Liberals Hate Football“:
We can still remember the pep talks our coaches gave us every August before beginning the torture of two-a-day pre-season practice sessions in Florida’s stifling heat and humidity. Those pep talks, paraphrased, always went something like this:
Boys, football is just like life. There are no free rides. On the football field you get only what you earn. Nobody makes the team because he or anyone else thinks he deserves it. I don’t care who you are or who your daddy is. If you want to play on this team, you’d better give me a 110 percent effort on the field and off. On my team you have to re-earn your starting position everyday.
This brings us to why liberals hate football. They hate it precisely for the reasons revealed in our paraphrased pep talk: football is not an egalitarian enterprise. It is 100 percent merit-based. Football rewards hard work, perseverance, performance, and the will to win. It is a game where there are no entitlements, no handouts for slackers, and no hand wringing about hurting the feelings of those who don’t measure up. Football honors winners, regardless of race, cultural heritage, socio-economic status, or worldview. Further, it gives losers opportunities to learn that life can be hard and, at times, unfair—valuable lessons for young people.
Liberals know better than to attack football for being merit-based. Consequently, they label it a “barbaric” and “violent” sport. In fact, they can become downright overwrought in their righteous indignation when quoting statistics about injuries such as concussions. How ironic that people who support the wholesale murder of unborn babies would show so much emotion over the comparatively small number of concussions that occur in football. Do you ever wonder if liberals are, themselves, suffering from a collective moral concussion. At least football players are given helmets and shoulder pads for protection, which is more than liberals are willing to give innocent unborn babies.
Here’s a fair question: why is Obama more concerned with the safety of football players than with our brave troops who defend our freedom? For years, he’s been forcing men and women on the front lines to fight with politically correct combat restrictions that tie one hand behind their backs in the face of a merciless enemy. More casualties have occurred in Afghanistan in four years under Obama than during the entire Bush administration.
Where are the calls to make our TROOPS more safe?
Veteran Stands Up For 2nd Amendment At Chicago Anti-Gun Forum
View on YouTube
“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” ~ Thomas Jefferson
If you can’t defend yourself, what’s to stop the government from stripping away all your rights?
Most liberals’ only experiences with firearms come via headline instigating crimes, which jade their conception of an armed citizenry. Homeowners defending the hearth rarely attract much media notice; nor will many liberals be found frequenting shooting ranges or hunting. Rather than familiarize themselves with firearms, it’s apparently more rewarding to delight in self-righteous approbation by restricting rights for those who haven’t harmed anyone.
[…] At its core, gun-control is about submission, not crime.
The Missouri Information Analysis Center, a federal organ of Department of Homeland Security, included veterans, pro-life advocates, gun enthusiasts, Ron Paul supporters, and those who disdain the Fed or UN as potential terrorists. Essentially anyone who dreads untrammeled central authority was suspect. Could unfashionable political stands ultimately be deemed mental disorders or national threats in a bid to disarm dissent?
[…] Disarmament is the necessary precursor to tyranny. History’s most lethal mass murderers have been dictators presiding over unarmed subjects. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot never faced significant civilian resistance. Oh that the Jews had been better armed. The Warsaw uprising began with one small pistol.
[…] Many European nations whose gun laws the Left wants to emulate here have endured murderous dictators. America has yet to suffer such subjugation.To wit, the most jealous guardian of liberty throughout the founding generation, Patrick Henry advanced, “[My] great object is that every man be armed.”
Washington has gradually eroded our unalienable rights while centralizing control. The Second Amendment provides a final redoubt guarding what remains of the other freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Or, as Harald Zieger, an émigré from behind the Iron Curtain, neatly summarizes, “America is the greatest nation on earth because it’s the only one with a First Amendment. We’re the only nation with a First Amendment because we’re the only one with a Second Amendment.”
Mark Levin makes some sobering and crucial points in his interview with Ben Shapiro on inauguration day:
As President Barack Obama prepares for his inauguration, Breitbart News sat down with radio talk show host Mark Levin, the bestselling author of the blockbusters Liberty and Tyranny, Ameritopia, Men in Black, and Rescuing Sprite. Levin painted a stark picture of the reality facing the country – the rise of tyranny – but he also offered hope in one word: “fight.”
“I don’t think Obama knows exactly what he’s going to go for in his second term,” Levin said, “as he will look for opportunities to exploit as events unfold. I am sure they’ve drawn up a partial a list, and we already know that it includes, but is not limited to, gun control; attacks on the First Amendment such as religious liberty; amnesty for illegal aliens; union expansion; institutionalizing Obamacare; institutionalizing voter corruption; de-industrialization via the EPA; destroying the capitalist-based economy via tax increases, smothering regulations, massive deficit spending, and endless borrowing; and hollowing out our military; etc. This will effect all of us. It will do extreme damage to the nation in many respects. I think Obama sees himself as correcting historic wrongs in this country, as delivering the fruits of the labor of other people to people who he believes have historically been put upon. I think there’s a lot of perverse thinking that goes on in his mind, radical left-wing thinking. He was indoctrinated with Marx and Alinksy propaganda. You not only see it in his agenda but in his words — class warfare; degrading successful people unless, of course, they help finance his elections, causes, and organizations; pretending to speak for the so-called middle class when, in fact, he is destroying their jobs, savings, and future. Obama’s war on our society is intended to be an onslaught in which the system is overwhelmed.”
How to fight that agenda? Levin said the answer certainly doesn’t lie in the current Republican Party leadership. “I think the Republican Party, its apparatus, its so-called leadership, the parasitic consultants, represent an institution that is tired, old, almost decrepit, full of cowardice and vision-less. It has abandoned the Declaration of Independence and any serious defense of constitutional republicanism. The Democrat Party is now a radical 1960s party; it’s the anti-Constitution, anti-capitalism, anti-individual party. It largely controls the federal government, including the massive bureaucracy and much of the judiciary — what I call the permanent branches of the federal government. The Democrat Party represents the federal government, and the federal government expands the power of the Democrat Party. They’re appendages of each other. On the other hand, the GOP today stands for capitulation, timidity, delusion — so mostly nothing. Republicans may speak of the Constitution, limited government, low taxes, etc., but what have they done about them? Next to nothing if not nothing. Even when Bush 43 was president and the Republicans controlled Congress. What did they do? They went on a spending binge. They expanded Medicare, the federal role in local education, drove up the debt, etc. Meanwhile, we are lectured by putative Republicans like Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Tom Ridge, and a conga line of others trashing often viciously NOT Obama and what the Democrats are doing to our nation, but conservatives, constitutionalists, and tea party activists who are the only people left standing for liberty against tyranny in this country.”
But, said Levin, the answer isn’t to start a third party – “The problem is a practical one. If we go third party, I can see the Democrats winning elections for a generation. Given the radicalized character of that party, that would seal our fate, and the fate of our children and grandchildren to, as Reagan put it, 1000 years of darkness. The day may come, perhaps soon, when abandoning the GOP for a new party is the best way to deal with events and stop the rise of tyranny. I think the answer at this moment is for conservatives to retake the Republican Party. Reagan did it, and Reagan was opposed by the Republican establishment every step of the way, including the Bush family. But this is a constant fight, just as fighting the Democrats is a constant fight. After the Reagan presidency, Bush 41 and Bush 43, who’d opposed the Reagan Revolution, immediately dragged the nation back into the Republican mush. In fact, they sought to distance themselves from Reagan and his achievements, using such silly phrases as “a kinder and gentler” conservatism or “compassionate conservatism,” as if all the opportunities, wealth, jobs, and enterprises Reagan’s policies launched were neither kind nor compassionate. There is an intransigence in the Republican Party that sabotages and obstructs those who have answers for this nation based on our founding principles. And so we had a brief eight-year period where Reagan showed us the way and created a foundation on which future Republican presidents could build, and they haven’t. They invoke Reagan because he is beloved by the American people, but they reject his principles and policies. Keep in mind, George W. Bush was the most profligate spender in world history until Obama came along; the Tea Party grew out of the last months of Bush 43 and the early months of the Obama presidency. Yet Bush administration staffers are everywhere today: the media, advising candidates, leading fundraisers, etc. And they arrogantly and condescendingly lecture conservatives about responsible, moderate governance. They also cheerlead for more establishment candidates, like John McCain, Mitt Romney, and the like, who are not only sure losers, but have no grasp of the urgency of our times and the principled agenda necessary to address it.
Americans can only get backed so far into a corner before they’re going to push back. These sheriffs mean business, and they’re warning the feds in no uncertain terms.
In the most strident warning over gun control to President Obama yet, the Utah Sheriffs’ Association is pledging to go to war over any administration plan to take guns away, even if it means losing their lives.
Calling the Second Amendment a sacred right of citizens to protect themselves from “tyrannical subjugation,” the association state elected sheriffs said in a new letter, “we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.”
Theirs is the first meaningful proof that some in law enforcement and the military are preparing to fight federal forces if the president wins his goal of sweeping gun control.
In a direct warning to Obama, the FBI and other agencies, the sheriffs wrote: “Make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs our our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights–in particular Amendment II–has given them.”
While he wants an assault weapons ban and limits on ammo magazines, the president has not yet suggested he wants to confiscate guns.
Don’t mess with Utah.
On Jan 19th, thousands of patriots rallied for “Guns Across America” in state capitols all across the nation, including Salem, Oregon. They came to voice opposition to the Obama administration’s shameless exploitation of the tragic murder of innocent school children in order to punish law-abiding citizens’ by restricting their gun rights – the same administration that has armed Mexican drug cartels and Islamic militants.
KATU’s Dan Cassuto remarked, “This was the quietest, most low-key rally I’ve ever covered on any kind of subject.” The message is clear. We are law-abiding. We are peaceful. We love this country and intend to preserve liberty for the next generation, including the God-given, unalienable right to self-defense against criminals and tyrants, which no politician or ruler can take away.
I find it very hard to believe that Obama doesn’t anticipate how many Americans will react if he dares to try and forcibly confiscate their weapons. The nationwide run on guns, ammunition and emergency preparedness supplies is a strong indicator.
I wish I could say Obama wouldn’t be that stupid, but it could be that he wants a crisis to exploit, after all.
The Obama team knows full well that its words and actions are causing fear, anger, and heightened vigilance among conservatives. The spikes in gun sales, NRA memberships, and harsh anti-government talk all over the internet are an unmistakable sign of a population preparing for — for something ugly. And yet they push forward, threatening specific action and escalating the anti-gun rhetoric with each passing day.
[…] In sum, they could not be stoking pre-revolutionary fever any more effectively among that minority of America’s citizenry that still stands by the nation as an idea, rather than merely as a piece of geography, if they had planned to stoke it. The only question remaining, it seems, is where all of this will lead.
Consider the following possibility — common sense dictates that the progressives have already considered it. Someday, federal officers are going to visit the home of a man who owns a so-called “assault-style weapon.” He has a family and a job. He pays his taxes. He has no criminal record. Not even a parking ticket. He purchased his gun legally. He uses it for target shooting. He thinks of it as an investment in the protection of his family and his nation, and his personal stand for constitutional liberty.
The federal officers are going to tell him that his weapon has been banned, that the deadline has passed for him to turn it in at the local police station, and that he must turn it over immediately. He is going to refuse, on the reasonable principle that a man is not obliged to obey a law that fundamentally violates his constitutionally protected rights. The officers, who will have been trained to regard such “resisters” as hostile and as mentally unstable, will call in for back-up and then give this law-abiding patriot an ultimatum: produce your banned weapon peacefully at once, or be taken into custody on charges of illegal possession of a firearm, and possibly subjected to psychiatric assessment.
If this man gives in and hands the officers his weapon, he will feel for the rest of his life that he has been broken — that when push came to shove, he did not have the courage to stand up for his children’s future. This, in short, is how the federal officials who sent the officers to his door want him to feel, and how they want everyone to feel: weak, ineffectual, emasculated, and submissive. It is how they want you to feel when federal agents molest your wife at the airport, and photograph your pubescent daughter in a naked scanner. It is how they want you to feel about your “private” health records being permanently on file with a half dozen federal agencies, to be opened at their discretion. It is how they want you to feel about the thousand bank-breaking regulations you are obliged to comb through and comply with in the names of “sustainability,” “social justice,” “anti-discrimination,” and a dozen other fronts in the war on self-governance.
These indignities are meant to ease you through the process of acceptance, of acquiescence, of relinquishing all pretences of inviolable principle in the name of getting along.
This scenario — this Conrad-style moment of reckoning for a man, before himself, his wife, and his children — will in fact likely be played out in many variations. Those officers might be coming for high-capacity magazines, for guns reported by a child’s playmate as unsafely stored, guns reported as unregistered, guns owned by people with relatives who have been diagnosed as “depressed” by a doctor, and so on. Most of the property owners in question will likely give in to the government’s demands, and many of them will do so willingly, believing it their duty to obey the law above all else.
Those who do not comply, on the other hand, will be a test case, at the very least. When the government is challenging a proud man’s dignity, his natural rights, and his courage in the face of a tyrannical demand, they are daring him to become a martyr to his cause. (See Mark Alexander’s declaration at The Patriot Post.) In the authoritarian’s mind, government wins either way. If the man gives in, subservience is reinforced. If he does not, then he can be made an example of, to serve as a stern warning to others.
This is not a moment to be taken lightly. Nor is it one to be welcomed with excessive “bring it on” bravado. America, which is emulating the rest of the West’s decline, but at double-speed in these final stages, has reached the saddest impasse. Unlike other nations, which have passively sold off their freedom for the false security of a smiling, cradle to grave despotism, America has seen it coming, has resisted it with force, and is now about to be dragged off the cliff kicking and screaming.
The challenge facing the men of America — not the mere “males,” but the men — is becoming clearer, starker, and more essential every day. That minority of us in the rest of the world who still care about freedom and modern civilization can only watch, with concern, sadness and hope, as the U.S. federal government, having reached its moment of final metamorphosis — its “fundamental transformation” — stares its patriotic citizens in the eye and says, “I dare you.”
The battle lines have been drawn.
Conceding “this will be difficult,” President Barack Obama urged a reluctant Congress on Wednesday to require background checks for all gun sales and ban both military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines in an emotion-laden plea to curb gun violence in America.
The president’s sweeping, $500 million plan, coming one month after the school massacre in Connecticut, marks the most comprehensive effort to tighten gun laws in nearly two decades. But his proposals, most of which are opposed by the National Rifle Association, face a doubtful future in a divided Congress where Republicans control the House.
Seeking to circumvent at least some opposition, Obama signed 23 executive actions on Wednesday, including orders to make more federal data available for background checks and end a freeze on government research on gun violence. But he acknowledged that the steps he took on his own would have less impact than the broad measures requiring approval from Capitol Hill.
Politico reports that the White House has prepared 19 Executive Orders to weaken and attack the 2nd Amendment while bypassing the constitutionally required legislative process:
The White House has identified 19 executive actions for President Barack Obama to move unilaterally on gun control, Vice President Joe Biden told a group of House Democrats on Monday, the administration’s first definitive statements about its response to last month’s mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
Later this week, Obama will formally announce his proposals to reduce gun violence, which are expected to include renewal of the assault weapons ban, universal background checks and prohibition of high-capacity magazine clips.
We’re now in dictatorial territory.
Ironically, Obama accuses gun control opponents of “ginning up fear on the part of gun owners that somehow the federal government’s about to take all your guns away” in order to boost sales, completely ignoring the fact that it’s Democrats who have incited a run on guns nationwide with their openly anti-gun agenda, which shoppers are trying to get ahead of.
Also, given the fact that this is the same guy who promised that you could keep your insurance plan and doctor under Obamacare (which has now been proven to be a blatant lie), why would anybody trust his word about their 2nd Amendment rights?
One Republican congressman is threatening to impeach Obama if he dares to abuse his Executive authority to assault the 2nd Amendment.
Mark Levin Goes Off On ‘Tyranny’ Under Obama’s ‘Imperial Presidency’ To Fox’s Megyn Kelly
View on YouTube
Right on the mark!
On Monday’s broadcast of “America Live” with host Megyn Kelly, conservative radio talk show host Mark Levin made an appearance to elaborate on remarks he made on his radio show last week about the president and his disregard for the Constitution.
Levin referred to Obama as an “imperial president” and pointed to his rhetoric about what he will do in lieu of legislative action by Congress by using executive order.
“I’m not into imperial presidents who act imperial and speak imperial and Obama forgets there’s a Constitution,” Levin said. “Yes, he keeps telling us he won re-election, congratulations. But guess what, the Constitution wasn’t up for election. It’s not up for a plebiscite or referendum. He has to comply with it, too. He was sent back to Washington, but he’s got a strict list of rules that he has to follow as president. So when he gets up there and starts saying, ‘If Congress doesn’t do this I’m going to do this unilaterally,’ it violates separation of powers a lot of the times. And this a man who’s been pushing the edge of the envelope as far as I’m concerned, whether it’s the appointment clause, whether it’s his unilateral on immigration, whether it’s his trashing the commerce clause and tax clause under ObamaCare. Now they’re talking about executive orders on the Second Amendment. They’ve issued regulations on the First Amendment attacking religious liberty. This notion that he might be able to lift the debt ceiling, you know, unilaterally under the 14th amendment.”
“What the hell is this?” Levin said. “He was elected president. Congratulations. This guy makes Richard Nixon look like a man who followed the law all the time. I think we have an imperial president. He sounds imperial, he’s arrogant as hell and so, I’m furious about this and I’m going to tell you why. We are a magnificent country. We don’t need to be turned upside-down. We don’t need to run from crisis to crisis to crisis. He’s bankrupting this country. He says, ‘We’ve had a discussion about the debt.’ When did we have a discussion about the debt? We’ve had a debate about taxes. The man is never around to have a discussion about anything. So, yes, he causes me to be furious when I watch and listen to him.”
Rand Paul on Gun Control Executive Order: Obama is Not ‘King’
View on YouTube
Thank God for Rand Paul for being willing to call a spade a spade. Now we need the rest of congress to step up and do the same!
The Obama administration has suggested using an executive order to bypass Congress if it can’t get the gun control measures it wants.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., told CBN News that members of Congress are prepared to fight such an order.
“I’m against having a king,” Paul said. “I think having a monarch is what we fought the American Revolution over and someone who wants to bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress — that’s someone who wants to act like a king or a monarch.”
“I’ve been opposed to executive orders, even with Republican presidents. But one that wants to infringe on the Second Amendment, we will fight tooth and nail,” he continued.
The Oregon Tea Party has the above image as one of their cover photos to remind Patriots that it’s better to get off the bench NOW, while the fight is still bloodless, than it is to wait until fighting for survival is the only option left
The reaction by gun owners and even prospective gun owners to Obama’s desperate executive order zeal is to hurry up and buy up all the potential guns and now legal weapons. The worry is that these legal weapons might be taken by edict or by force by the government. That may be a logical solution, but it is only a temporary one.
Once Obama’s federal government has quenched its thirst on stripping away gun rights, it will not hesitate to take the next step to criminalize actual possession of legally held banned weapons!
Then what will you do?
What is the response to a government that embraces tyrannical rule over the constitutional guarantees and protections contained within the U.S. Constitution?
What are you, the father, the mother, the son or the daughter prepared to do when, the government official, acting on direct orders from a new commission set up by President Obama to confiscate your guns, comes to your home’s door?
Where are the defenders of the U.S. Constitution who are elected in Congress? Are you absolutely certain they will not give in, and knuckle under Obama’s determination which is aided by the mainstream media talking heads?
Remember these are the same talking heads that avoided Obama’s dismissive behavior in not enforcing congressional legislation. This is the same mainstream media that buried the White House Benghazi murder cover up as if it never happened. Think about your choices when seeking to rely upon the once independent fourth estate, which has been rendered a useless patsy for the Obama administration.
Do you really believe that once your guns are banned, and the weapons that were grandfathered in and off limits from government seizure, will not be taken in the second round of gun control legislation?
[…] America, if you fall victim to this prospective criminalization of your own legal rights, then the forces of Obama and his socialist tyranny have already won half of the battle.
On Tuesday, January 15th, Vice President Joe Biden is going to submit his gun control task force report to Obama. After that, the full on assault will begin over the next several weeks in the nation’s capitol.
You should not wait and see what will happen in Washington D.C., during this legislative battle. This has to be a time where you, the defender of your house, your home, your castle, truly take steps to embrace the tasks of true constitutional vigilance. This vigilance begins in your home, and not in Washington D.C.
Each American must determine that they are ready to speak to their neighbor, family member, co-worker, or friend, and ask, “What are you prepared to do, to hold your congressman or woman responsible?”
The congress cannot pass a law unless both houses pass the legislation to begin stripping your rights and the President signs it. Biden has insisted that Obama will soon after receiving the vice president’s report, move to use an executive order to enforce stricter gun control measures. If he does it, demand it be over ridden and demonstrate until it is over ridden!
The Second War of Independence is not when you begin to see the Obama gun control brigade at your door, it begins when you decide to do nothing, and just let it happen.
The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting. It has to do with the God-given right to defend ourselves against human predators who do the hunting – including our own government. Every mass genocide in history has been preceded by disarming the population. An armed society is a polite society.
As Thomas Jefferson said, “When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.”
As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free just as He is. Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government. As our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us. A natural right is an area of individual human behavior — like thought, speech, worship, travel, self-defense, privacy, ownership and use of property, consensual personal intimacy — immune from government interference and for the exercise of which we don’t need the government’s permission.
[..] To assure that no government would infringe the natural rights of anyone here, the Founders incorporated Jefferson’s thesis underlying the Declaration into the Constitution and, with respect to self-defense, into the Second Amendment. As recently as two years ago, the Supreme Court recognized this when it held that the right to keep and bear arms in one’s home is a pre-political individual right that only sovereign Americans can surrender and that the government cannot take from us, absent our individual waiver.
There have been practical historical reasons for the near universal historical acceptance of the individual possession of this right. The dictators and monsters of the 20th century — from Stalin to Hitler, from Castro to Pol Pot, from Mao to Assad — have disarmed their people. Only because some of those people resisted the disarming were all eventually enabled to fight the dictators for freedom. Sometimes they lost. Sometimes they won.
The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king’s government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.
We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties, they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.
The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis had, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.
Canada, the UK and European churches are finding out the hard way what the end result of the radical gay agenda truly looks like.
Take heed, America!
If churches are forced by new legislation or by civil suits to conduct homosexual “marriage” ceremonies against their beliefs, it would constitute “a piece of tyranny by which the rights of hundreds of thousands, millions even, of people of faith … will be ruthlessly trampled upon,” said the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP).
[…] But in a statement issued November 15th, UKIP warned that the writing is on the wall for churches if the government introduces legislation creating gay “marriage.”
It is “inevitable that gay couples will seek the right to marry in Church and that Churches will refuse to permit them to do so,” said UKIP. Despite the government’s assurances, “there will, very soon after the introduction of gay civil marriage, be a challenge in first the domestic courts of England and Wales and then in the European Court of Human Rights alleging that the exclusion of gay people from the right to have a religious ceremony of marriage is unlawful discrimination against them on the grounds of their sexual orientation.”
“[T]here is a very strong likelihood that the Court at Strasbourg will agree that it is an unlawful discrimination on those grounds and order the United Kingdom to introduce laws which will force Churches to marry gay people according to their rites, rituals and customs.”
The party said it is sure that the current government would “swiftly bend the knee to such a ruling and introduce such legislation” forcing churches to conduct gay “marriages.”